Joe McCarthy is dead, but his believers live on.

It's OK. I enjoy the battle.

Perhaps a visit to LA is warranted...

This was diaried on kos yesterday. Totally freaked me out, especially when I read that at UNC-Carolina, students have red books to record teachers using a "liberal" bias. Now, Carolina is a really good school in a fairly liberal area of NC (if you can believe that.) I thought that couldn't be right, who was giving and collecting these red books? Turns out it's Students for Academic Freedom. Not that SAF is ever worried about a conservative bias in the classroom, just a liberal bias.

Neo-con students are a hoot! If you don't say exactly what they want to hear -or exactly what they believe- it pisses them off pretty badly. I love the neo-con kids from poor families. Birthed on the public dole, educated on the public dole, fed on the public dole. They'll tell you they made it on their own! It's a hoot!

Andrew Jones, a 24-year-old who graduated in June 2003 and was chairman of UCLA's Bruin Republicans student group

Hey! I was out there for a convention at that same time! I went to a local park and got a blow job from a guy who called himself Andy Jones. Nice clean cut college kid who needed money for college. He let two of my buddies do him in the ass for free because he likes it that way, or so he said.

The kid in charge of the thing is Andrew Jones, age 24, a June, 2003 graduate. Andrew "is supporting himself with a modest salary from the organization and is its only full-time employee."

Sounds like finding that first job can be a bitch.

Well, O'Reilly's got an "Enemies List" so why not?

1/18/2006

Cutting to the chase of the Rude Pundit today:
...

"If you're the Democrats in Congress, faced with filibustering Samuel Alito, you apparently throw up your hands and say, "Hey, c'mon, he wasn't grabbin' her ass or anything'. Yeah, he's an asshole, but he's a nice asshole." As Tim Grieve writes in Salon, "[F]or years now, Democratic senators like [Dianne] Feinstein have justified their existence by warning voters about the possibility of a court full of Scalias: Send me back for another term in the Senate -- send money to get me there -- and I'll stand up for an independent judiciary and protect a woman's right to choose. So here we are, confronted with another Supreme Court nominee who shows every sign that he'll roll over for the executive branch and roll back Roe the first chance he gets, and the Dianne Feinsteins of the world say the nomination doesn't rise to the level of a filibuster." Or, in other words, put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

The Rude Pundit has said it before and he'll say it again: Democrats need to think of themselves as an organized resistance, an insurgency against a dictatorial government, an uprising with popular support among the citizens of the United States. A resistance doesn't succeed unless it actually, you know, resists. And if not on Alito, then what? Dianne Feinstein-leaning Democrats need to take a page from the anti-abortion movement: if you believe it's about life and death, then act like you wanna save lives.

But the flaccid Alito battle ain't just about Roe v. Wade, although, as so much else in this country, the story of Alito on the Supreme Court will be written on women's bodies. No, it's about the spine of the Democratic Party and the legs of democracy itself. To say that unless one finds out something horrendous about a nominee to the Supreme Court, like, say, they eat puppies alive (did anyone ask Alito that?), then a President ought to "get" who he nominates to the Court is to willingly give the Executive branch more power. "Advice and consent" means, like every parent will tell you, that the answer can be "No." It also misreads the purpose of the Supreme Court. The Court ain't about a single president. It's about the nation and its history and its future. If Democrats allow it, the Court will become another political arm of the White House.

Doesn't the Democratic leadership understand what's going on in the nation outside of Washington? The majority of the country is behind them. We want the fucking fight. We want to see the bullies get their comeuppence. We want some smashed nutsacks and some kicked asses and some bloodied noses. Resistance is not only noble, it's the most goddamned American thing you can do. So what if Alito was soft-spoken and not a raging lunatic? The scariest lunatics are the quiet ones - at least a screaming Bork'll let you know he's gonna shiv you when you turn your back. Creepy-ass Alito stares at you blankly and makes you think he's benign. Those're the nutzoids who'll gut you the second they get the chance.

In the end, if you don't stand up and fight for the one thing you've said you'll throw down on, then you may as well say that you don't actually believe in anything. You gotta be willing to get up out of your seat and tap that asshole on the shoulder and tell him to step outside.

(And, by the way, the same thing goes for so-called "moderate" Republicans. You're either tools of the President or individuals elected by the citizens of your state for your "moderate" beliefs.)

// posted by Rude One @ 9:31 AM"

Rude Pundit Truth

Actually, there is already a website devoted to rating university professors, all ratings from former or current students. It's www.ratemyprofessors.com. It's a hoot, I've checked out profs at my alma mater and it's pretty accurate. Don't know if it's accurate for all colleges.

The self-appointed resident expert on anything has spoken! Rise and declare your alliegence to the brag!

I just caught this news story on KCAL 09...no blonde forsaking the use of a vibrator, however....

However...you gave me an excuse to gawk at Mia Lee, and her wondrous boobage!

I think the appropriate response would be to spy on the dating life of such pinheads, if they have one. And a guerrilla group of liberal babes could flirt their guards down and get them to confide their 'extreme' fetishes, which can then be published for the amusement of all.

Call it a bit of tit4tat.

liberal babes? like who, Rosey O'Donnell? Barbara Streisand?

Janeane Garofalo? eeeeeewwwwww!

Eh, these students will get what's coming to them in May, when they fail their exams 'cause they spent too much time taking notes on their teacher's "liberal bias" instead of on what the teacher was actually teaching.

You guys are pathetic hypocrits, plain and simple. If you want a cup of java without spewing out of your mouth, then try to speak honestly every now and then.

You are angry that some students are going to "monitor" their professors. OH MY GOD. How dare they do that to these liberal professors?

Do you even listen to yourselves?

These students are going to public universities. They pay tuition to learn about math, science, the arts, and instead of being taught the facts, they have their liberal idiot professors tell them how much they hate Bush.

So the speech of a professor that is being paid to teach a subject and then goes off subject to teach his personal political convictions is wonderful, . . .

But a student that is going to merely monitor that speech is somehow an evil book burner and should have his legs cut off from under him.

So it was soooo shocking that you spit the coffee out of your mouth....hummmmm, maybe it was the lack of taste that you have in general that you have no idea what is and isn't shocking.

Do you ever read your own article/posts before you post them?

Do you enjoy seeing these professors torture their students as much as you seemingly enjoyed seeing the terrorist insurgents "toy" with Bush?
(as you delightfully discussed in one of your posts two weeks ago.)

There's nothing sacred about being a university professor. If anyone wants to monitor what they say, using their own time and resources, who cares?

How about a little red book where you list the names of all neo-con professors who spout the Party line?

"little" being the operative word....

"How about a little red book where you list the names of all neo-con professors who spout the Party line?"

How would that be any different? Seems like the reverse situation to me, but why would it be worse or better than what these students are actually doing?

If anyone understands Carp's post, please explain it to me. Carp's that Case Study on How Conservatives Argue. Now watch what he/she says next.

Avaroo, as usual you are missing the whole picture, but I'm not surprised.

And then they came for me......

Are you saying someone is STOPPING you from monitoring what conservative professors are saying, Judith?

We aren't going to be encouraging our Neanderthal neighbors to 'do something' about the conservative professors.

Personally, I would think it would be just as ok to monitor what conservative profs say as it would liberal profs. It's not ok for profs to "proselytze" no matter what side they're on.

Why? Are studens today too dense to be able to decide for themselves if what they are hearing is not for them?

Obviously not, otherwise how would they be able to recognize when a prof is proselytzing, for either side?

Then why does someone take it upon himself to 'out' these professors? If it isn't for the 'benefit' of the students, then there is another agenda at work.

There are channels that exist in all university for students (or anyone else) to file a grievance if they have issues with anyone on campus. Professors are routinely evaluated -- probably more often and in a more formal manner that in most professions.

That being said, I have heard the cry for years that profs force their ideas on students. I have yet to see anything concrete offered as evidence. Even David Horowitz can't really come up with anything specific.

If students want to give feedback, let them fill out the form and follow the procedures in place. Paying them $100 to "report" on their profs might put some money in some pockets. If might also get their parents or themselves some nasty lawsuits.

Basically, this is a politcally motivated publicity stunt by a more or less unemployed young republican.

Why does someone take it upon himself? Who knows. Who cares? My point is what difference does it make?

As I mentioned above, this montioring is hardly new. Go to www.ratemyprofessor.com. Students have been doing this for years. You can find all kind of student comment on professors. There's nothing sacred about being a professor that would make one immune from commentary on their teaching.

My point is what difference does it make?

Don't have an answer, eh, Teach? You would know the answer if you were subjected to such scrutiny.

"Professors are routinely evaluated -- probably more often and in a more formal manner that in most professions."

Actually, the tenure system makes it extremely difficult to do anything about any professor, no matter what they're doing, politically or otherwise. It's just a version of the good ole boy system, basically. It would be just as difficult to oust a conservative proselytzing prof as it would be a liberal one.

"Don't have an answer"

I don't think it makes any difference. Was that not obvious from my response?

roo, read carefully, k? There is a huge difference between, voluntarily and without renumeration, leaving feedback within preset parameters on a website with moderated comments and paying students to provide a limited type of information on their professors for clearly political purposes.

"There is a huge difference between, voluntarily and without renumeration, leaving feedback within preset parameters on a website with moderated comments and paying students to provide a limited type of information on their professors for clearly political purposes."

Other than the payment, what is the difference? Why would anyone care that students were being paid to give comments on professors, no matter what the comments were? Is it somehow taking money out of your own pocket?

roo would have been highly regarded in Munich during the Thirties!

What if patients were paid to give comments on doctors? Would people lose their minds over that too?

How about ministers/rabbis/priests?

Other than the payment, what is the difference?

Try again, roo.

See dorita? Other than the fact that someone is paying the students, there is no difference. The question is, why on earth do you care that anyone is spending money to do this? As long as they are using their own money, or money voluntarily raised from people, what's the difference?

One thing to remember is that a conservative education is an inferior education. A conservative educational system can not teach evolution or mythology.

Actually, the tenure system makes it extremely difficult to do anything about any professor, no matter what they're doing, politically or otherwise.

While tenure may make terminating the employment of any given prof somewhat difficult, it in no ways precludes disciplinary action when warranted. That's what the grievance system is for.

"While tenure may make terminating the employment of any given prof somewhat difficult, it in no ways precludes disciplinary action when warranted. That's what the grievance system is for."

That must explain the disciplinary action taken against Ward Churchill for calling the victims in the Twin Towers "Little Eichmanns".

Why are these freaks so concerned about College professors anyway? Adults go to college not children. Their value systems are formed way before they get there. I worked with some people who went to Bob Jones at one time who weren't changed by going there. Basically BJU attracts fundamentalists who already agree with their agenda.

See dorita?

Indeed roo, I am truly wowwed(!) by how quickly you put together that retort.

What speed! What clarity!

Try again, roo.

Try what again? Other than the money, you haven't come up with anything and yet you cannot say why you care if anyone is paying students for comments.

No one spends $5000 on 'so what'! There is a reason that this money was spent, and it wasn't just to subsidize rich college kids.

That must explain the disciplinary action taken against Ward Churchill for calling the victims in the Twin Towers "Little Eichmanns".

Any disciplinary action taken against any prof would not be privy to you. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it it doesn't exist. Right?

Same here, Ga6thDem. I went to Baylor for a particular department's reputation, not the religion classes. The religion classes were actually quite good, with no proselytizing.

Try what again? Other than the money, you haven't come up with anything and yet you cannot say why you care if anyone is paying students for comments.

Yes, I have.

"No one spends $5000 on 'so what'!"

ah, that explains the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog then.

"There is a reason that this money was spent"

because the person/people spending the money wanted to know what the students thought. Is that not obvious? The question remains, why do you care that anyone wants to know what students think? How does it affect you?

"Any disciplinary action taken against any prof would not be privy to you."

Actually, at a public university, it would be

In about '86 I was attending CSULB (up to 7 units for free, as a staff member) and I took a class in anthropology on Japanese modern society. The prof. was a dyed in the wool "Marxist" and he taught the class exclusively from the "Marxist" viewpoint of Japanese current affairs. I never did get his point and GOD, it was boring! And not very informative about Japan, except for this philosopy of his on Marxism in Japan. I had no idea that the Marx Bros. had every been to Japan. Honto desu-ka? Ie, chigaimasu...yo? (:>

No dorita, you have not.

Actually, at a public university, it would be

No, a prof's personnel file would not.

"No, a prof's personnel file would not."

Sorry, no.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html

Yes, roo, I already have. Please, scroll up and read again. Money was not the only difference I identified.

Again, a prof's personnel file is not public unless s/he chooses to make it so. Reading some of the "link" you offered might show you how it doesn't apply to the point at hand, just as brief look at the the other site you referenced my enlighten you on my prior point.

why do you care that anyone wants to know what students think?

I care - VERY much - about what they intend to do with this information. The fact that they have mounted a very effective campaign to braodcast their activities tells me that they have plans for that information.

How does it affect you?

It affects me through the actions of those who would suppress ideas that they wish to see stifled. It affects me in that people will stop speaking freely and without fear. It affects me in that there has to be an opposition to those who clearly are out to destroy this nation for their own gain. It affects me in that people will not be challenged to think - something this campaign is intending to to strangle.

If there is only 'approved' thought, then this country is done.

That affects me.

So far, money has been the only difference you've managed to show. Yet you cannot explain why you care if anyone pays anyone for comment on any subject, period.

"Again, a prof's personnel file is not public unless s/he chooses to make it so."

Sorry, no. See my link above.

"I care - VERY much - about what they intend to do with this information."

WHY?

"It affects me through the actions of those who would suppress ideas that they wish to see stifled."

How does student comment "suppress ideas"?

"It affects me in that people will stop speaking freely and without fear."

You mean like the students?

"It affects me in that there has to be an opposition to those who clearly are out to destroy this nation for their own gain. It affects me in that people will not be challenged to think - something this campaign is intending to to strangle."

overwrought emotion is not reasoned argument.

You mean like the students?

They don't seem very afraid if every news show in the nation is devoting several minutes to this effort even now. There is no opposing view being presented.

But then, that's what people like you want, isn't it? Then, your boy George could do whatever he pleased and no one would/could care.

"They don't seem very afraid if every news show in the nation is devoting several minutes to this effort even now."

Why would you want students to be afraid? Are they somehow ineligible to provide commentary?

"There is no opposing view being presented."

Obviously the professors would have the opposing view, wouldn't they?

"But then, that's what people like you want, isn't it?"

Who, dems like me? I want free speech for everyone, students included.

"Then, your boy George could do whatever he pleased and no one would/could care."

you are very confused

BushCo should be impeached for their crime of intimidation. Isn't that a hate crime? They've successfully put the kibosh on people expressing themselves politically without fear.

A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.

The "rate" site you mentioned moderates comments and has set parameters for contributing. The input is focused on teaching ability. OTOH, the activity suggested by Mr. Jones group is not going to be moderated in anyway, as far as any of us know. It is also politically motivated. I'll add some more differences. The first site's purpose is to offer information to students so they can make choices. The purpose of the second organization -- at least initially -- is to identify one particular group based upon information gathered by informants motivated by politics and money.

"Are you saying someone is STOPPING you from monitoring what conservative professors are saying, Judith?"

No Avaroo, that's not what I am saying, but you know that. Liberals don't go around taking names and monitoring conservative professors like your kind does. We believe in freedom. You know, where I may not agree with you, but you have the right to express another view other than the one I agree with. Obviously, you don't agree with that premise.

"The "rate" site you mentioned moderates comments and has set parameters for contributing. The input is focused on teaching ability."

Really? Check out the commets on Professor David Harley of Notre Dame...http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=129966

"I'll add some more differences. The first site's purpose is to offer information to students so they can make choices."

Yes, political information as in David Harley's case. Unless you think the term "Marxist" refers to his teaching skill.

So, we're back to....money.

"Liberals don't go around taking names and monitoring conservative professors like your kind does."

Isn't that exactly what you're doing here? Taking names and monitoring what others are saying? In this case students.

"We believe in freedom."

Not for students apparently.

And this, from Rate My Professor.com apparently qualifies as commentary on teaching ability to dorita,

"Harley uses his class as a forum for his anti-American vies. Be wary of expressing anything but the Communist Party line in one of his classes. Avoid Comrade Harley!"

This fucking turd is asking a bunch of non-sensible questions again!

Ignore the fucking bitch!

Personal to avaroo:

Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.

AMF!

"Get correct views of life"

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

Furthermore Avaroo, why would someone want that information and pay $100 to get it??????

"Furthermore Avaroo, why would someone want that information and pay $100 to get it??????"

the concept of paying for information foreign to you? I take it you don't believe in focus groups, market research companies, etc?

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

POT CALLS KETTLE BLACK! STUDENT GROUP SUMMONED TO REPORT INCORRECT POLITICAL OUTLOOK TO THE MEDIA!

"STUDENT GROUP SUMMONED TO REPORT INCORRECT POLITICAL OUTLOOK TO THE MEDIA!"

summoned? can you prove that?

roo, I looked up profs at my university that I have heard political chat about -- and none of them contained the type of reference that you point to. My first inclination is to think that the moderator has yet to clean up the comments. You seem to have come to your own conclusions based on one prof at one university on one site.

The site has a policy. If the moderators are not following the policy, my hope is that it is corrected in a timely manner. I'm not going to go running around the internets copying and pasting arbitrary citations.

Furthermore Judith, if no one should be paid for an opinion, should columnists who are paid to write opinions for say, The New York Times, be banned from doing so? If it's wrong to pay anyone for an opinion. Or is it just wrong to pay anyone for a CONSERVATIVE or LIBERTARIAN opinion?

Or is it just wrong to pay anyone for a CONSERVATIVE or LIBERTARIAN opinion?

Don't bother writing you're a democrat.

"roo, I looked up profs at my university that I have heard political chat about -- and none of them contained the type of reference that you point to."

ah, but you didn't say YOUR profs' political views weren't commented upon. You said the site only had comment only on teaching ability. And that's, as I proved, clearly not true.

"My first inclination is to think that the moderator has yet to clean up the comments."

From 2003?

"You seem to have come to your own conclusions based on one prof at one university on one site."

You can find other examples. I just gave one to refute your point.

The point is, student comment on professors is nothing new.

Do roo do anything new but ask questions?

"Don't bother writing you're a democrat."

You can be a libertarian democrat. Even a (horrors!) conservative democrat. I'm the former.

The devil roo's game is mental dullness.

Avaroo is using the Conservative Arguing angle. .

More from Rate My Professors.com, differnt school, different professor....and not about teaching ability

"Horrible class and horrible professor. she is super liberal and used ever chance in class to make sure we knew she was a huge feminist. She is super condescending and just a bad teacher. Dont take a class with her at all"

"She is horrible and so is her class. I wanted to kill myself. No wonder no one except a few liberal loser GDI suck ups go to class. She hates men, conservatives, protestants, etc. She should be fired"

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=392888

ok, roo. Let them pay students to record and report back about profs. No big deal about that. We should trust them, right? I mean really, the truth will float to the surface and every "bad" prof will be identified. And if no prof is doing anything wrong, well then, no students will report him/her. What's there to worry about?

It's so meaningless that no one should really bother to post or comment about it (or put it on the tv or radio). And if someone does, well, it's inconsequential, since it's not really important. But thank the gods you are here to point out that it's not important.

Again, you have wowwed me. It took a little longer this time, but there it is.

"Furthermore Avaroo, why would someone want that information and pay $100 to get it??????"

the concept of paying for information foreign to you? I take it you don't believe in focus groups, market research companies, etc?

Here it is. I don't believe in focus groups, market research companies, etc. Did I say that, no, but that's how this group works in arguing.

ah, but you didn't say YOUR profs' political views weren't commented upon.

Why would I?

"ok, roo. Let them pay students to record and report back about profs."

They're going to anyway. Lots of people are paid for opinions, how is that earth-shaking news?

"We should trust them, right?"

Do you trust every paid-for opinion?

"And if no prof is doing anything wrong, well then, no students will report him/her."

Why do you use the term "wrong"?

"It's so meaningless that no one should really bother to post or comment about it (or put it on the tv or radio)."

well, obviously, someone thought this was new ground. Of course, had they done any homework at all, they would have known better.

"And if someone does, well, it's inconsequential, since it's not really important. But thank the gods you are here to point out that it's not important."

I don't think I ever used the term "not important". I've said it's not new, and it isn't. Lots of people are paid for their opinion.

According to Toby, roo loses.

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

If you mention nazi, you lose. Look it up.

"Here it is. I don't believe in focus groups, market research companies, etc. Did I say that, no, but that's how this group works in arguing."

So, it isn't ALL paid-for opinion you object to, only some paid-for opinion. Is that correct?

"Why would I?"

You didn't. Instead you claimed that the site was only for comment on teaching ability. And you were incorrect.

Why do you use the term "wrong"?

You must study to be frank with the world, avaroo. Frankness is the child of honesty and courage, things you avoid. Say just what you mean to do on every occasion, and we'll take it for granted that you mean to do right, right?

Lots of people are paid for their opinion.

And you get what you pay for.

"And you get what you pay for."

I agree.

"Furthermore Judith, if no one should be paid for an opinion, should columnists who are paid to write opinions for say, The New York Times, be banned from doing so? If it's wrong to pay anyone for an opinion. Or is it just wrong to pay anyone for a CONSERVATIVE or LIBERTARIAN opinion?"

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 05:38 PM

Posted by avaroo

The next sentence will be:

I didn't say that it is wrong to pay for an opinion.

Yes, you did.

No, I didn't

Yes, you did. You said it was just wrong to pay anyone for an opinion.

No, what I said was why would someone want that information and pay $100 to get it?"

So, you are against paying someone for information.

Liberal quietly goes outside and has primal scream.

Notice that a student does not get the cash unless he/she provides the exact type of information the GOP info collector wishes: professors advocating political ideologies which are expressed in an abusive, one sided or "off topic" (?) way.

Generally paying a witness for only a certain type of information you might be seeking is thought to undermine the witnesses credibility.

Further the GOP group is paying money to receive a specific type of information. Information regarding NON abusive presentations of ideology is not requested, not paid for, and hence not collected. This results in a biased sample, which is of course the entire goal here.

Other than the very public nature and controversial nature of the announcement, which is likely intended to, at some level, chill the UCLA professors preferred manner of presenting their subjects.

Too bad kids, you selected your school and your professors because you supposedly want to be educated by them and to see how they think about things. But now Right Wingers demand that every aspect of existence, including the honored Professor/student relationship, has to be a meaningless exercise of He said/She said on every topic.

"Liberal quietly goes outside and has primal scream."

It takes very little to reduce most liberals to that. Instead you should use the time to better think through your views. They're laoded with poor logic.

You fucking idiot. I am against people collecting names of professors whether they are paid or not paid for it. A concept that obviously escapes you.

"Notice that a student does not get the cash unless he/she provides the exact type of information the GOP info collector wishes: professors advocating political ideologies which are expressed in an abusive, one sided or "off topic" (?) way."

Actually, that's a mistatement. The article says that students are paid to provide information on teachers who are abusive, etc. It does not say that payment is witheld from students who do not provide such information.

"Generally paying a witness for only a certain type of information you might be seeking is thought to undermine the witnesses credibility."

Market research companies pay people to provide information about specific products, issues. You could not make the case that paying people for information on only certain products and issues to the exclusion of others, undermined their credibility on those specific products/issues the research companies were looking at. IOW, if you're asked to provide your views on Kellogg's cereals, your views wouldn't be undermined simply because you weren't also asked about Post brands.

"Further the GOP group is paying money to receive a specific type of information. Information regarding NON abusive presentations of ideology is not requested, not paid for, and hence not collected."

See above. Just because you're looking only at Kellogg's and excluding Post, doesn't undermine your opinions on Kelloggs.

"Other than the very public nature and controversial nature of the announcement, which is likely intended to, at some level, chill the UCLA professors preferred manner of presenting their subjects."

What evidence is there for this?

"Too bad kids, you selected your school and your professors because you supposedly want to be educated by them and to see how they think about things."

Selecting a school, class and/or professor does not mean one has to agree with everything that prof says.

roo, your argument here has been blown. You must know the rules. There's really nothing new left for you to say.

If you must go on, please explain how anyone on this thread has approach nazi-like behavior.

"I am against people collecting names of professors whether they are paid or not paid for it. A concept that obviously escapes you."

collecting names?

"It takes very little to reduce most liberals to that. (primal scream)

Avaroo is like a grade school bully. He and his friends bully, punch and taunt a kid on the playground, and when he finally cry, they call him a wuss and sissy.

If you have a comment on the topic, dorita, I'm happy to respond.

"Avaroo is like a grade school bully."

On the contrary, Judith. For example, comments such as this:

"You fucking idiot. I am against people collecting names of professors whether they are paid or not paid for it. A concept that obviously escapes you.

Posted by Judith at January 18, 2006 06:08 PM"

would be the kind of thing a bully would do.

roo, you pulled the "nazi" trigger. Let's hear it. Prove your "liberal" creds.

The terms "democrat" and "liberal" are not synonymous, dorita.

roo, you said it. It's up to you to own up to it. If pess thinks it's off topic, he will comment or edit.

They're laoded with poor logic.

Laoded? Do illuminate our darkeness at to what this noun is. I've never heard of it before! Is it something you picked up in Vietnam working with the Montagnards? Were you working the west side of the Ho Chi Minh Trail?

What a heerow!

What would you call this fucker? I call it collecting names.

"Although the group says it is concerned about radical professors of any political stripe, it has named an initial "Dirty 30" of teachers it identifies with left-wing or liberal causes."

"Laoded?"

or even loaded....

"What would you call this fucker? I call it collecting names."

Obviously it's about more than the profs names....

Of course, they are not. Deflect all you want. You brought up the nazis. You justify it.

"Were you working the west side of the Ho Chi Minh Trail?"

Is that anywhere near the Ho Chi Mihn Trail?

:)

"Avaroo is like a grade school bully."

On the contrary, Judith. For example, comments such as this:

"You fucking idiot. I am against people collecting names of professors whether they are paid or not paid for it. A concept that obviously escapes you, would be the kind of thing a bully would do."

No, that's not being a bully. That's flipping you off. :)

Judith, you call him a fucking idiot for collecting names of professors. Well since when is Freedom of Speech, only Speech that you approve of? Who cares if I publish the names of every abortion doctor in town, or every minister who is having an affair, or whether my President lied?

Who gets to decide what is Speech and what is Freedom?

You call the conservatives idiots for doing that which you hypocritically say your party stands for. You should be ashamed. Its okay to put a crucifix upside down in a glass of urine, to burn an American Flag or to call our president a traitor, along with calling our soldiers in Iraq terrorist, but GOD FORBIDE that someone would go about keeping track of what these professors are saying in their classrooms.

I really enjoy debating, but I'm at a loss now. I hate to use the word fools, but I can imagine no other. And to be honest, I'm disappointed with several of you for continuing the diatribe.

I may be wrong, but I'm beginning to think this group of idiots are nothing more than some high school sophomore class' attempt at fun.

Oh and as to my opinions, I say burn the flag, I think its disgusting, but do it, libs have no respect for it, and buring the flag says more about you than I.
Berate and call our president traitor, he knew that he was putting himself out there.

But calling our troops and soldiers cowards and terrorists like your heros in the left do, and telling them we can't win, well thats just . . . well, I can't say for fear I'd break the four letter word rule.

As I said earlier, you are pathetic, plain pathetic. You don't need to choke on coffee, you need to instead swallow the kool-aid.

And to Avaroo, how do you keep it up. Pearls before swine, pearls before swine.

"Do illuminate our darkeness at to what this noun is."

What is "darkeness"?

:)

Obviously it's about more than the profs names....

Yep, you said it.

And you also used the label nazi. Care to clarify?

or even loaded....

One would have to be even-handed to even loaded. There are no level surfaces on the conservative sphere.

"Do illuminate our darkeness at to what this noun is."

Could you have meant...."Do illuminate our darkness AS to what this noun is.""

:)

What is "darkeness"?

The Olde English spelling.

"And you also used the label nazi. Care to clarify?"

I can't imagine anyone on here needs much clarification on the term "nazi".

"The Olde English spelling."

only when they were....."laoded"

(Bangs head against wall) You guys just are either too stupid to get it, or refuse to get it. I don't which it is. I'm finished. This merry-go-round has stopped.

"No, that's not being a bully."

Actually, it's the very definition of being a bully.

Obviously it's about more than the profs names....

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. Controversy of all kinds will, in my opinion, only serve to continue excitement and passion, and will prevent the public mind from the acknowledgment and acceptance of the truth.

pessimist, if you trust "the people", what do you have to fear about student comments, paid or unpaid?

Dorita, at least 7 days ago, I asked Carp to tell me how he came to the conclusion that we liberals hate America. We talk about civil rights, and freedoms, and helping our fellow man, and bringing our troops home to their love ones, and I am told we hate America. The coward still hasn't answered my question, and if he did, I haven't seen it. If you have ever noticed, they never put their money where their mouth is.

Legitimate market research generally accepts anything the participant wants to say about the relevant product and pays the participant the promised amount no matter what the participant says about the product.

That's not what's occurring here.

Are you really maintaining that this GOP group is following accepted "market research practices" here?

"Legitimate market research generally accepts anything the participant wants to say about the relevant product and pays the participant the promised amount no matter what the participant says about the product.

That's not what's occurring here."

That's exactly what is happening here.

Its called FREEDOM OF FRIGGIN SPEECH.

This is true liberalism. Do as I say, not as I do.

Its okay for you to speak out in your own disgusting ways...thats one of our cherished rights, that the left has used so effectively over these many years...

But so also is their ability to turn the speech off when they don't like it.

YOU CAN DISH IT OUT. BUT YOU JUST CAN'T TAKE IT.

Judith, I think it was something his grandmother told him when he was young.

what do you have to fear about student comments, paid or unpaid?

If it wasn't for the neoncon pejorative 'liberal', it wouldn't have made the UCLA campus newspaper, much less that damn 'liberal media'. Thus, there is much more to this than you dare admit to.

That's exactly what is happening here.

And you can document this how? You can prove your assertion? Your certainty is hardly assuring.

But so also is their ability to turn the speech off when they don't like it.

You've had the floor all to yourselves for 26 years. You are going to have to relearn how to share that forum, kid. Take what you dish out like the man that you aren't and like it.

bbtb, this is too funny. Now they are calling for freedom of speech. I can't stand it anymore. Good nite. LOLLOLLOLLOL

Honestly, who cares what the little piss ant is paying people to write about their professors.

Souds like he's got himself a good little racket going. Onward and upward to bigger and more evil things in the GOP! Carl ROve must be proud.

Judith,
I am working on your request. Eloquence and appropriate antedotal (sic) evidence is important, but so is empirical evidence, which is difficult to prove when it comes to emotions. (I love my wife, but I can't prove it empircally, only by evidence of my actions.)

So I'll begin by this one antedotal (sic) bit of evidence about why LIBERALS HATE AMERICA.

Because they HATE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
They love their right to curse, scream, hollar, accuse, destroy and trample our American Soldiers while in harms way,

But they dispise any Speech, and the right for others to express themselves, when that Speech "offends" their feelings of what they think is right and wrong.

Thats one way you HATE AMERICA. I hate the content of your SPEECH, but I'm damn Proud that in America, even compete idiots have that right, otherwise the webmaster that runs this website would be taken off for treason for his siding with the enemies successes in Iraq.

Maybe the reason he can't keep the coffee down, is because he is so full of S@#T that there is no room for anything more.

Pathetic, plain Pathetic.

"If it wasn't for the neoncon pejorative 'liberal', it wouldn't have made the UCLA campus newspaper, much less that damn 'liberal media'."

any request for student comment on profs would have made the campus newsletter, on any campus. And probably the media too.

"And you can document this how?"

See my example of Kellogg's vs Post above. Now if you have information that students made comments about professors are were not paid for them, let's see it. You basically misstated what the article said. It does not claim that students were only paid if they said what someone else wanted them to say, it said students were paid for comments on specific professors the students themselves identified as abusive....etc.

avaroo and carp, you cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side.

So many have jumped in. . . first, Judith, you and I have had our disagreements. I'd ask you not to lump me in, please.

carpe, I am quite certain that you have jumped in here without reading all of the comments nor following the argument. If you have included me in you judgement, oh well. I have tried several different angles, with the same result. I'm experiementing. roo doesn't read much either. Otherwise, s/he would understand that the comparison s/he tried to make is faulty.

carpe, as an attorney, aren't you always looking for weak or poor arguments? Accusing someone of behaving or commenting like a nazi is a weak argument, right?

Here's the relevant part of the article, euzious...

"An alumni group headed by a former campus GOP leader is offering students up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies, it was reported Wednesday."

Note it does not say that students were not paid to provide information on instructors who were NOT abusive, one-sided, etc. That is not the same thing as asking for information on professors and then only paying the ones who gave some pre-determined acceptable answer.

You basically misstated what the article said. It does not claim that students were only paid if they said what someone else wanted them to say,...

Oh? I don't recall saying that at all. My gripe is with the person laying out the loot, so address that issue.

"Oh? I don't recall saying that at all."

That comment was for euzious, not you.

"My gripe is with the person laying out the loot, so address that issue."

I already have. In my view, anyone can pay anyone else for opinion on anything, anytime they want to.

Before I turn in I have an idea. I will pay anyone $10,000.00 who will post what they think about Bush. Only liberals are allowed to post. The information will be used, I can assure you.

Here are only two more examples of idiotic and treachous Speech that is currently protected in America. . . . But oh no, don't let a student keep track of what the liberal professors are saying....(and as an example of how Liberals Hate America and blame her first) (got this Judy?)

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs"
John Kerry December 05 Face the Nation

Or this item as quoted from Aljazerri.net's website... by another disquished DEMOCRATIC SENATOR

A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.

US Senator Dick Durbin on Wednesday refused to apologise for comments he made on the Senate floor referring to Nazis, Soviet gulags and a "mad regime" like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia

Of course, I'd almost call this giving aid to the enemy, like another Great Democrat American Hating Liberal did, called Jane Fonda.

"I will pay anyone $10,000.00 who will post what they think about Bush. Only liberals are allowed to post. The information will be used, I can assure you."

While you can pay anyone for opinion on anything at anytime, as you have said that only liberals are allowed to respond, it is not comparable to the case under discussion here. For the cases to be comparable, only specific students would have been told they would be paid.

So carpe, it comes full circle with you. Earlier you only offered anecdotal evidence that profs were talking off subject. Even David Horowitz has no, absolutley no concrete evidence of it. It works both ways.

Once again, I ask roo to substantiate the nazi attribute.

Clear yourself. You have lost the debate. You lost it posts ago, roo.

carpe, you disappoint me.

"So many have jumped in. . . first, Judith, you and I have had our disagreements. I'd ask you not to lump me in, please."

I'm not sure what you meant by that Dorita. But if I "jumped in", I am truly sorry.

Of course what Durbin was actually doing was decrying activities such as torture, rape and prisioner abuse as un-American and not something one would associate with American soldiers but rather with Nazis and Soviets. Durbin was defending the past record of Americas service members.

But that doesn't matter does it. He mentioned Nazis.

"Earlier you only offered anecdotal evidence that profs were talking off subject."

Anyone who has attended college would know that they do. On all sorts of subjects.

Many, many democrats distanced themselves from Durbin.

I'd talk if I could but I have this hose in my mouth for force feeding. I'll get back with you later!

I hate what you guys say, I deplore most of your insanities, but I'm damn proud that you, and even the moderator, has the right to slam others with his right to speak.

I think it ironic, though,

That a young man is wanting to monitor these professors....

And this webmaster is offended so much that he throws up his coffee, (probably some prissy little california liberal coffee or java as he says, that has mint juleps and cocoa beans mixed in,... but I digress....)

He is soooo offended that this guy might REPORT what these professors are saying. .. ..

that the webmaster actually, get this cuz its good, he REPORTS what this young republican is doing.....

Thats right, he is REPORTING WHAT THIS MAN IS DOING in that this man is REPORTING what the professors are doing.....

True LIBERALISM. . . so friggin blind.

I think the mere fact that Soto (sic) has reported this man's story, is in and of itself wrong, therefore, www.theleftcoaster.com should be SHUT DOWN for attempting to intimidate Free Speech.....

Sad, so very sad,

And yes, Dorita, I'm an attorney and using Nazi, as Durbin did is not a good thing. Niether is using compelling and intellectual argument when your opponent is a liberal.

Shame on you all for being so friggin blind and unwilling to admit it.
Soto was wrong about the earlier support of terrorists, and he is wrong now....

oh carpe -- you're down to quoting that news source?

I'm going to violate my New Year's Resolution now, but damn, that is funny!

(apologies to those concerned -- back on the wagon tomorrow -- I get three strikes, right?)

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs"
John Kerry December 05 Face the Nation

OK,. don't listen to John Kerry. Would you listen to Lt. Col. Rick Welch, just back from a tour in Iraq with the 1st Cavalry Division, who as a civilian serves as prosecuting attorney?

"Even for the most peaceful family, kicking down their door can cause some serious relationship issues," Welch said, "because according to Islam, there are three things that justify revenge: invading one's country, invading one's city, and invading one's home."

Now that you have demonstrated you don't know anything about that topic, find one that you are qualified to discuss - like the relative merits of Honey Nut Cheerios versus the regular version for breakfast.

"Even for the most peaceful family, kicking down their door can cause some serious relationship issues," Welch said, "because according to Islam, there are three things that justify revenge: invading one's country, invading one's city, and invading one's home."

Even muslims in Kuwait would probably agree

"Even for the most peaceful family, kicking down their door can cause some serious relationship issues," Welch said, "because according to Islam, there are three things that justify revenge: invading one's country, invading one's city, and invading one's home."

and would suicide bombings justify revenge?

What's the problem with what Durbin said?

I hate what you guys say, I deplore most of your insanities ....

And just what is your prognosis, Dr. Carp?

And yes, Dorita, I'm an attorney ...

Sorry, counsellor! I didn't see that you had your Future Doctor kit put away.

But hey! That's Owwer Carp! A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

True LIBERALISM. . . so friggin blind.

Posted by carpediem at January 18, 2006 07:11 PM

*****

True Liberalism founded this nation, you cumstain.

Conservatives control EVERYTHING, and still, all that is wayward is the fault of the "Liberals."

You pathetic fucking wannabe victim. If you really want to be victimized, come pay me a visit.

Bitch.

A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy - only in Bu$hCo's case, 'organized' doesn't apply.

Many, many democrats distanced themselves from Durbin.

Not in Illinois, they didn't. And that's all that really matters.

But please, provide a source for your contention that "many, many democrats distanced themselves from Durbin."

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

Meaning, this is not what one thinks of when one thinks about how American soldiers behave. He spent the majority of his speech praising our armed forces. He spoke out about these events exactly because they are an aberration that requires clear and universal condemnation. They ARE acts we associate with Nazis and SOviets. Not with Americas fighting men and women.

That's what he said.

Do conservatives and Republicans not associate chaining prisioners to the floor naked and denying them food and water with regimes like the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge? Any conservatives here want to refute that that sounds more like a tactic of nazis or soviets than American soldiers?

Carp,

Since when is speaking the fucking truth hating America?

You are a jackass.

carpe, please, roo was the one who introduced the nazi argument (and has avoided defending it) not you my man. Don't plea to what you haven't done -- isn't that something you counsel you clients about?

"Not in Illinois, they didn't. And that's all that really matters."

Not if you're a New Yorker.
:)

"But please, provide a source for your contention that "many, many democrats distanced themselves from Durbin."

You can find that yourself, along with Durbin's subsequent apology. For which I give him credit.

But it's safe to say that Richard Durbin will NOT be on the democratic presidential election ticket in 2007.

"You fucking idiot. I am against people collecting names of professors whether they are paid or not paid for it."

"Judith, you call him a fucking idiot for collecting names of professors."

Perfect example of spin and twisting of what was said.

'your' clients -- oops!

If it wasn't for this blog, avaroo and carp should have remained what they were when they first stopped by: prejudiced, narrow-minded beings, with contracted sympathies and false knowledge, wasting our comment space on inaccurate trifles, and remaining utterly insensible to the privilege of living in this wondrous age of change and progress.

An alumni group headed by a former campus GOP leader is offering students up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies, it was reported Wednesday.

****

"I will pay anyone $10,000.00 who will post what they think about Bush. Only liberals are allowed to post. The information will be used, I can assure you."

While you can pay anyone for opinion on anything at anytime, as you have said that only liberals are allowed to respond, it is not comparable to the case under discussion here. For the cases to be comparable, only specific students would have been told they would be paid.

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 07:03 PM

****

The point you seem to be attempting to make and failing (very much) is that this is merely some sort of opinion research. It is not. It's very clear that who ever is paying for this information will only pay for the "right" information, information that the professor is liberal. They won't pay for objective, non-partisan information, get it? So your point to Judith is out to lunch. Hope ya got better game next time.

roo, I know you had hoped that it would go away, or that someone would take up your side, but could you would you please tell us what about pessimist's earlier comment was in any way worthy of your deeming it nazi in meaning (as you stated)?

Well there are alot of responses to this post... I'm surprised none of the respondents much less the author of the post (Pessimist) actually posted details of the "offer"....
http://www.uclaprofs.com/studentshelp.html

Of note:
"To see if we need information on the professors you've already taken, or will be taking this winter quarter, call 310-210-6735, or email bruinalumni (AT) bruinalumni.com"

So the first step would appear to be to contact the actual offering group.

Next no one has mentioned that there are different levels of compensation...
$100 - complete recording of class, all materials and notes (more on this in a moment)
$50 - all materials and notes
$10 - all materials

Now of these the only one which could truly concern professors is the $100.00 level because this would capture an exact record. Of note at the $50 level you would need at least 2 if not several more copies to even make a case of anything, so let's cut straight to the recording.

For the recording there is a little issue - you can't record someone in California without their permission - which brings us to a key disclaimer in this listing: "The Bruin Alumni Association will not purchase any lecture recordings that were obtained without consent of the recorded professor." So all these professors need to do is deny permission to be recorded...

By the way most of the information on the site has been provided by reviewing public petitions, open letters and public statements... which are by definition public - and if someone wants to set up a listing of professors with liberal leanings based on the public record they are free to do so (just like someone searching public letters against certain large environmentally damaging projects would turn up information on me.)

As usual Pessimist has created a post that is heavy on 'heavy breathing' and light on the real data.

light on the real data.

Do your own digging for the details of the offer. I wasn't about to aid that insidious effort which I oppose. I'm sure you understand that concept, for that is all you freepercreeps do when you come by.

"The point you seem to be attempting to make and failing (very much) is that this is merely some sort of opinion research."

It is.

"It's very clear that who ever is paying for this information will only pay for the "right" information, information that the professor is liberal."

Actually, nowhere does the article say that.

But it's safe to say that Richard Durbin will NOT be on the democratic presidential election ticket in 2007.

he was never interested in that office. he will continue to represent the people of Illinois as he has for many years.

lame, truly lame that you can't provide any sources for your contention that dems have distanced themselves from Durbin. given his continued presence in Congress and on committees, it must not have been that much of a big deal to anyone. unlike some reps who have had to leave committee positions.....

"he was never interested in that office."

I didn't say he was. I said he wouldn't be on the ticket. And he won't.

"lame, truly lame that you can't provide any sources for your contention that dems have distanced themselves from Durbin."

It isn't that I can't. I've already said you can find it yourself.

"given his continued presence in Congress and on committees, it must not have been that much of a big deal to anyone."

Dems distance themselves from other dems too, Pelosi comes to mind, Dean.

"unlike some reps who have had to leave committee positions....."

are you saying that no democratic representative has ever left a committee position? Google Jim Wright.

Dan Rostenkowski

Bob Toricelli

Still pathetic attempts at trying to paint your "leeder" as you guys say, with some small amount of credibility.

You guys are rats on a sinking ship, but the point is, you refuse to acknowledge its sinking.

Plain as day, and yet you do not see the light.

Soto was doing exactly that which he found repugnant, and you all jumped on board....
And you talk about how conservatives don't know how to argue.

I suggest a new link be posted on the front page of this website, since Aljazeera rejoices in the same news that many if not most of you liberals on this site rejoice in. (especially its hosts)

http://english.aljazeera.net/

(dorita, my apologizes, but I'm at a loss for where our discussion was going. Perhaps next time, I'll be better read on the prior posts. Freedom of Speech and liberal hypocracy is one of my buttons, when it gets pushed, I lose track of where the other discussions were going.)

Avaroo,
You were wrong to refer to the quote Pessimist posted as being 'Nazi'. It's older then WWII - as one who grew up near Civil War battlefields - I recognize it's a quote from the US Confederacy:

"Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret."- Robert E. Lee

Of course you got caught because it was posted out of context. Used as it was with a shouted "Adious My Friend" at least I presume that's what Pessimist was using 'amf' to mean, the implication was this was a sarcastic posting. In such a sense this is being used more as failure to follow 'right-think' and is probably better described as Orwellian.

But my interpretation...
try to keep in mind Pessimist posts to manipulate not to provide acurate information.

Actually, nowhere does the article say that.

It doesn't have to. Sentient beings can easily recognize the inherent bias in this project:

An alumni group headed by a former campus GOP leader is offering students up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies.

Considering that only the wrong-wing cares much about one's political orientation with an eye toward taking away one's means of employment (see: demands that K Street firms only hire Republicans - taken from that commie pinko publication The Washington Times - your own media betrays you!), it is no stretch to understand that there is a political pogrom under way.

OTEC, welcome are you :) Thanks for the laughs on a couple of threads. You are quite the "authority" :)

Good to see you are still alive, having served in Iraq -- or wait -- that wasn't you. Oh and since you were so right on that Fitz prediction, good job!

Back to roo. Accusing someone of nazi tactics is no light matter. Explain yourself, roo.

Echo, actually the only part of pessimist's post that I referred to as "nazi" was this: "Get correct views of life". And the nazis did very much have a "view of life" that they considered "correct" with any other view incorrect.

But thanks for the tip on where the whole quote came from.

Actually, you are correct, Avaroo. More research needs to be done on exactly what type of information they seek, etc. If it's non-partisan, I have no objection. If it it is partisan, I think they're goals at least should be explained to the students. Also, a partisan survey is legitimate, but as I said, should be explained to those participating.

Try to keep in mind OTEC posts to manipulate and to provide inacurate information.

Mediocrity can talk, but it is for genius to observe.

I don't care if he apologized. And I don't care if he'll be on the presidential ticket in 2007. Does that mean that any Dem not on the ticket is being put at a distance by many Democrats?

My question stands.

Do conservatives and Republicans posting here not associate the actions that the FBI agent described and that Durbin read to the Senate with the types of actions perpetrated by Nazis and Soviet guglag operators? Not with American soldiers.

It's a simple question really.

Why don't profs just teach the subjects that they are hired to teach? I don't want to hear the opinions of the left OR the right. Just teach the class, stupid.
I was not indoctrinated in college by either party when I went to college 15 years ago. Keep to the subject matter, and if you have a personal opinion, share it with your friends or an organization.
Students are in college to get an education, not indoctrination by EITHER side.
There should be no debate on this. Education should be subject matter, not opinion.

"It doesn't have to."

It does it you want your statement to have any credibility.

"Sentient beings can easily recognize the inherent bias in this project:

An alumni group headed by a former campus GOP leader is offering students up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies."

What is the bias? That students are not asked to provide comment on instructors who are NOT abusive, one-sided......? Nope, we're back to the Kellogg's vs Post. Just because you are not asked about Post, doesn't mean your views on Kellogg's are undermined.

"Considering that only the wrong-wing cares much about one's political orientation with an eye toward taking away one's means of employment"

ah, a whole new claim.

"it is no stretch to understand that there is a political pogrom under way."

well, that's the moonbat cheer, isn't it? There's a pogrom underway underneath every stone, isn't there?

"More research needs to be done on exactly what type of information they seek, etc."

Actually, legally, anyone may seek any kind of information they want to, any time they want to do so. This is after all, America.

"If it's non-partisan, I have no objection."

I don't know that your objections matter. Would they matter if someone wanted to research views on brands of automobile? Or footwear?

"If it it is partisan, I think they're goals at least should be explained to the students."

Actually, if you're the way paying for the research, you get to do it any way you want to. How is this not clear?

"I didn't say he was. I said he wouldn't be on the ticket. And he won't."

Neither will Daffy Duck. What's your point?

"It isn't that I can't. I've already said you can find it yourself."

You have no evidence. You are merely making it up as you go along.

"Dems distance themselves from other dems too, Pelosi comes to mind, Dean."

Durbin is in no danger of being "distanced" by anyone.

"are you saying that no democratic representative has ever left a committee position? Google Jim Wright."

Not what I am saying at all. I am merely pointing out the fate of Trent Lott, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney who are the current poster boys for bad behavior.

I have been reading these posts, going back to Pessimist’s post, reading the original article and seeing all of the talk of free speech and freedom of thought and freedom to record notes and freedom to report.

Really, this is not what disturbs me most. The arguments that call this 'no big deal' are what disturb me.

It is not the freedoms that upset me; it is the move towards lack of freedom that really frightens me. So the arguments have been skewed and tweaked and don't seem to really go to the heart of WTF and the coffee spitting was really exemplifying; shock.

I have went round and round, this is the portion of the article that I find the most disconcerting:

“Some of the instructors mentioned accuse the association of conducting a witch hunt that threatens to harm the teaching atmosphere, and at least one of the group's advisory board members has resigned because he considers the bounty offers inappropriate, according to The Times.”

Because of fear, irrational fear, fear that caused multitudes of people to accuse others, for reasons unknown, mere resentment, distrust, hysteria, delusion or simply not liking how one looked, women were hanged and men were crushed by stones.

“By the time the hysteria had spent itself, 24 people had died. Nineteen were hanged on Gallows Hill in Salem Town, but some died in prison. Giles Corey at first pleaded not guilty to charges of witchcraft, but subsequently refused to stand trial. This refusal meant he could not be convicted legally. However, his examiners chose to subject him to interrogation by the placing of stone weights on his body. He survived this brutal torture for two days before dying.”
24 had died, hundreds were accused and imprisoned. Fear led to hysteria led to a group of people being stigmatized and slaughtered.

The group here, the Profs being labeled, are "Liberals" - who have been demonized, just as the witches (Or accused witches) were.

In Europe it is thought that between 200,000 and 9 million people were accused and massacred.

I am dismayed that so many on the right are missing this point.

BTW:Let me add my opinion of the site to this fray...

I think economically it's a good idea for students to report on professors who spend significant periods of time off course topic. In classes related to political science this information is part of the material but when it comes to say 'biology' there is really no justification for wasting thousands of dollars per hour to discuss political opinions.

Yes, thousands per hour when you consider the cost of the professor's paid time, the room and related university services to support the classroom, the time of the students and the cost to their futures of time not spent on topic.

Is the initial site "conservative" - yeah looks it to me... but I'm sure once there is money to be made there will be a "liberal" site and that colleges will strive to be in one camp, the other, or neutral... so in the real world - non-issue.

Dorito... saw you on the thread - don't recall claiming or ever mentioning going to Iraq and the only Fitz prediction I recall was related to Rove not getting indicted... but thanks for the complement.

BTW:Let me add my opinion of the site to this fray...

I think economically it's a good idea for students to report on professors who spend significant periods of time off course topic. In classes related to political science this information is part of the material but when it comes to say 'biology' there is really no justification for wasting thousands of dollars per hour to discuss political opinions.

Yes, thousands per hour when you consider the cost of the professor's paid time, the room and related university services to support the classroom, the time of the students and the cost to their futures of time not spent on topic.

Is the initial site "conservative" - yeah looks it to me... but I'm sure once there is money to be made there will be a "liberal" site and that colleges will strive to be in one camp, the other, or neutral... so in the real world - this is a non-issue except to the local Pravda readers who are concerned they won't get paid to push their belief that noone should be paid...

carpe -- you must please read to then be considered seriously here. I did not paint you with that brush of ignorance. Close reading would still show that I am hopeful with regard to you :) roo is a circular type. You must recognize that. OTEC is a hit or miss type. You at least come here every day and try to participate. I must give you that.

We will meet on another thread, earlier perhaps, but my schedule only gives me a limited amount of time. For this evening, I have a lot :)

I've got to scroll up now before I comment further. It's a good habit to adopt. Perhaps you will, too.

"What's your point?"

that Richard Durbin won't be on the democratic ticket in 2007

"You have no evidence. You are merely making it up as you go along."

You're welcome to your opinion.

"Durbin is in no danger of being "distanced" by anyone."

Probably not anymore, after apologizing.

"are you saying that no democratic representative has ever left a committee position? Google Jim Wright."

"I am merely pointing out the fate of Trent Lott, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney who are the current poster boys for bad behavior."

And they're different from Jim Wright, Bob toricelli and Dan Rostenkowski how? Other than that they're republicans and these 3 lovlies are dems.

"so in the real world - this is a non-issue except to the local Pravda readers who are concerned they won't get paid to push their belief that noone should be paid"

LOL

"Get correct views of life"

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 05:30 PM

roo, you can thank OTEC all you want, but you started it.

Expain yourself, k?

"An alumni group headed by a former campus Democratic leader is offering students up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies, it was reported Wednesday."

Now I have one question. Had this been the headline, would you right-wingers still be posting the same kind of posts and defending the Democratic leader????? I think NOT.

There's not much to explain about the concept of naziism

"An alumni group headed by a former campus Democratic leader is offering students up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies, it was reported Wednesday."

How would this be any different than what's actually been reported in the original link? Is this not just the mirror image?

This would be virtually the same thing...

"An alumni group headed by a former campus Independent leader is offering students up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies, it was reported Wednesday."

Dear ?,

It makes no difference who the person is, or what political affiliation...the right to do what he is doing, is no different than what we are doing here, excercising our right to freedom of expression/speech. (As I said, I'm proud that you liberals were able to burn the American Flag with pride, while pictures of it were shown to our POW's in Vietnam, like John McCain. How proud they were that they were defending a country that had given this right to embeciles.)

I make no qualms about my hatred for what you guys say and do, but I'm proud that idiots like you have the right to spit on the lives like our soldiers, who lay their lives on the line for that right everyday.

Why? because its called America, plain and simple. Freedom of Speech does not mean POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEECH. It means Speech!

You guys are just plain blind...no, not blind, but too damn arrogant to admit your own stupidity, but hey, you are smart enough to know how to run our country or who the Democrats should have as our leader, Go Gore, Go Dean ARGGGHHHH.

Why hasn't the Democratic Presidential recieved a majority since 1976? I wonder why, with so many brainiacs as yourselves...then again, you guys are too smart for most of America.

Dorita, I have no disagreement with you, but I am sorry you do with me. It would have been nice to have discussed it.

Dorita, I have no disagreement with you, but I am sorry you do with me. It would have been nice to have discussed it.

I do my best to identify those with whom I disagree. I know we have interacted once before, but I have not pointed you out knowingly to disagree with on this thread.

that Richard Durbin won't be on the democratic ticket in 2007

Hogwash. You were implying that because of Durbin's comments, he won't be the democratic presidential candidate. But he won't be the democratic presidential candidate because he isn't interested in the position.

And they're different from Jim Wright, Bob toricelli and Dan Rostenkowski how? Other than that they're republicans and these 3 lovlies are dems.

I didn't say there was a difference. I was discussing the current crop of the corrupt but you prefer to live in the past. But while you're poking around in the past, don't forget about Gingrich.

And now, back to the topic of this thread....

If that was you carpe and you forgot to identify yourself, we then, we have diagreed, at times.

I hope, yes still, that you will come to this place and treat my friends as you treat me. You have always been kind to me. Perhaps you can step back from all you have heard, read and internalized and simply see that there is much to learn here and to explore.

Funny, I didn't think that this topic, so close for me, in ways you don't know carpe, could have gone on for so long.

carpe, you sleep well.

"Hogwash."

You want to put a little money on whether or not Durbin will be on the ticket?

"You were implying that because of Durbin's comments, he won't be the democratic presidential candidate."

He won't be.

"But he won't be the democratic presidential candidate because he isn't interested in the position."

It wouldn't matter if he were interested.

"I didn't say there was a difference."

You're recognizing that no party has a patent on corruption?

"But while you're poking around in the past, don't forget about Gingrich."

He won't let you. He's like Al Gore that way.

avaroo, you need to get some sleep, you get nasty when you stay up this late.

On the contrary, I'm rarely nasty, even when tired.

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 05:30 PM

honest maybe....but rarely nasty. In fact, I'm distressingly for a number of people on Left Coaster, good natured.

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 05:30 PM

you seem to be trying to establish something, dorita. Want to say what it is?

avaroo, trust me on this one, you come across as a real a-hole. I'm just being kind by blaming it on your insomnia. TTFN.

The same could be said for you.

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 05:30 PM

"avaroo, trust me on this one, you come across as a real a-hole."

self awareness is not your thing, is it?

"The same could be said for you."

Not really. There's little question as to what I said.

More research needs to be done on exactly what type of information they seek, etc."

Actually, legally, anyone may seek any kind of information they want to, any time they want to do so. This is after all, America.
****

Reaching. Selective use of words. Of course it's legal, but generally speaking, a responsible organization will disclose it's intent. Sorry, no cigar, Avaroo.

****

"If it it is partisan, I think they're goals at least should be explained to the students."

Actually, if you're the way paying for the research, you get to do it any way you want to. How is this not clear?

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 08:32 PM

****

Once again, reaching. A responsible organization would reveal it's intent and it's goals. We can go on like this all night, but you haven't proven anything other than the ability to cherry-pick phrases to support a subjective argument. The fact that they're paying for the information does not discount a social responsiblity to it's participants.

"Reaching. Selective use of words. Of course it's legal, but generally speaking, a responsible organization will disclose it's intent. Sorry, no cigar, Avaroo."

It has disclosed its intent. To seek out opinion on professors who are abusive, one-sided, etc. How is that unclear?

"Once again, reaching."

Nope. You're paying for the research, you get to say how it's done and what's researched.

"A responsible organization would reveal it's intent and it's goals."

Nonsense on the goals. Companies do research all the time. So does the government. So do individuals.

"The fact that they're paying for the information does not discount a social responsiblity to it's participants."

Unless people are forced to participate, it most certainly does.

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?
Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 05:30 PM

This notion that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they may reserach and how they must research it, is truly mind-boggling. How do people get so off track?

But wait, avaroo, you are the one who said it was nazi-ish.

kinda nazi-ish there, isn't it?

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 05:30 PM

"But wait, avaroo, you are the one who said it was nazi-ish."

yes

"And there you are, roo."

yes, I'm here

Reaching. Selective use of words. Of course it's legal, but generally speaking, a responsible organization will disclose it's intent. Sorry, no cigar, Avaroo."

It has disclosed its intent. To seek out opinion on professors who are abusive, one-sided, etc. How is that unclear?

"Once again, reaching."

Nope. You're paying for the research, you get to say how it's done and what's researched.

"A responsible organization would reveal it's intent and it's goals."

Nonsense on the goals. Companies do research all the time. So does the government. So do individuals.

"The fact that they're paying for the information does not discount a social responsiblity to it's participants."

Unless people are forced to participate, it most certainly does.

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 10:22 PM

****

I've particicpated in many free and paid for opinion surveys, and in all cases, their purpose and intent were disclosed prior to my answering any questions. That is what I mean by responsible organizations. You can argue until your blue in the face, I really don't care, but your argument is specious at best. The paying part is irrelevant.

"I've particicpated in many free and paid for opinion surveys, and in all cases, their purpose and intent were disclosed prior to my answering any questions."

maybe, maybe not. Even if that were true though, there's nothing that says whoever is doing the survey doesn't get to decide how it's done. You're not forced to participate after all.

"That is what I mean by responsible organizations."

Do you believe that legally, every survey must be done by what you would consider a responsible organization? Do you believe the results of every survey you ever see? Do you honestly think anyone should?

Fundamentally, this is a freedom issue. In this country, people have the right to conduct VOLUNTARY surveys any way they see fit. Even if you don't care for it.

I should add that also in this country, people have the right to discount the results, methods, goals and objectives of any survey. Freedom - it's a thing of beauty I tell ya.

I mentioned in my prior post that the organization needed to be researched for their full intention and I stand by that comment. I could give a shit less for your cheap arguments, Avaroo.

Uh, 224 commnts, and I'm suppsed to say something meaninful and worthwhile at this point?

Wait, what's the point of this thread again?

Moving on........

"I mentioned in my prior post that the organization needed to be researched for their full intention and I stand by that comment."

Then do it. Who's stopping you? You're just as free to do that as they are to do the survey in the first place. It's a thing of beauty.

Fundamentally, this is a freedom issue. In this country, people have the right to conduct VOLUNTARY surveys any way they see fit. Even if you don't care for it.

Yep. Until you cry nazi. Then the conversation stops, right?

You can label anyone you wish as nazi with no penalty. You can continue to comment here. No one will ban you. You can say what you want. You can volunarily speak your mind.

But you said that pess was a nazi and admit it.

"Yep. Until you cry nazi."

Actually, people have the right to conduct surveys any way they see fit no matter what I say or you say.

"You can label anyone you wish as nazi with no penalty."

Actually, I labelled a comment as nazi-ish.

MisterOpus, you should find this thread interesting, but if not, then I guess you are happy that someone will judge your profs before you even get the chance to experience her/his course.

"MisterOpus, you should find this thread interesting, but if not, then I guess you are happy that someone will judge your profs before you even get the chance to experience her/his course."

Unless you are in the very first class a prof has ever taught, then someone HAS judged every prof you've ever had before you get to experience his/her course.

Actually, I labelled a comment as nazi-ish.

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 11:04 PM
And why did it strike you as nazi-ish?

because I understand the definition of naziism

In fact, on any campus, you can find out which profs are easy, which aren't. Which ones will bore you silly with political stuff of any ideology and which ones are fun. It's not like students don't talk amongst themselves. Reputations carry for decades on college campuses.

Unless you are in the very first class a prof has ever taught, then someone HAS judged every prof you've ever had before you get to experience his/her course.

Posted by avaroo at January 18, 2006 11:08 PM

That's what I said.

Actually, you said nothing of the sort.

yes, I did.

Nope

Dorita, avaroo,

I promise to read this tomorrow. Admittedly I'm not in the right frame of mind to read this seriously.

All I can say in my strange mindset right now is that I find it a bit silly on the right-wing argument that there's liberal bias in any given college. At least from my experience, all my professors from KU taught me to learn how to think for myself, and to learn how to researh and formulate thoughts from evidence-based practice.

Aside of that tangential thought, again I promise to read all these thoughts. Until then, have at each other.

Opus

Opus, I don't know that the argument that there's liberal bias on college campuses is the issue. Certainly you can find people who will argue either way, that there's liberal bias on college campuses and that there's conservative bias. The issue seems to be more about the actual survey and whether or not anyone has the right to conduct such a survey.

Opus, thanks for the heads up. You and roo are rocks.

Nope

yeah,right.

right

Yes, roo, it is who conducts the survey and for what purpose. You got that right. Well done!

Wow. that was . . . powerful.

"Yes, roo, it is who conducts the survey and for what purpose."

anyone can, for any purpose. Freedom is a beautiful thing

yes, it is.

we agree, at last

Jesus H Christ. Can't you guys just ignore the fucking trolls? The signal to noise ratio in the comments is approaching zero.

SJ, finally someone says it all.

What everyone seems to forget is that in a Country that is ruled by criminals and spying on it's citizens, we are naturally suspicious of any act that trys to identify any group of people. This latest act deserves scrutiny because we don't trust the Republicans or the Bush Administration.

You can thank your leader for that.

No one willing to dispute the merit of Durbins comments?

Carpe?

You condemned him as an America-hater for what he said. Do you disagree that chaining someone to the floor naked and depriving them of food and water sounds more like the tactics of Nazis, Soviets or Khmer Rouge thugs than the type of actions one associates with the American military?

Or is that what comes to mind when you think about how the American military typically treats prisoners?

Dear Snark,

The comparison analogy can be a useful tool. But how and why you liberals use it is an important distinction.

Anytime the word Nazi or KKK is ever brought up, only tends to heighten the discussion to emotion, not to the conveyeance of understanding.

Ex: Hitler absolutely loved his wife so much so that he married in the hours before he killed himself and her....

So I guess Al Gore is just like Hitler because he loves his wife as much as Hitler loved his wife, so much so that he couldn't bare to live life without her....

By analogy and comparison the two are true, but instead of conveying Gore's sincere love and affection for his wife, we are now completly off the topic.
(As to the allegations of torture, without debating that term, suffice it to say, that atrocities occur throughout this world and throughout time, the need to compare them to some of the most barbaric dictators is just stupid and does not teach your audience a single thing, it does however, get a rise out of the left wing base that needs this stirring of their high strung imagination.)
So play me like a fool, because you know full well of what you speak.
the use of Nazi, Hitler, etc. are nothing more than calling blacks Niggers, or White's Rednecks or Crackers. I think one calls Jews Kites? although I'm not familiar with that, I think Spick is for Italians....there are a lot.

You use these terms to inflame your listener, not to encourage sound debate....
I love hyperbole, I love to stir the waters up to get a rise that causes more thoughtful debate. What I despise is the attacks of a personal nature through the use of these terms that have no meaning other than to demean the speaker.

the use of Nazi, Hitler, etc

Oh, lighten-up! No one is comparing you to Hitler, just the average brown shirt. Some are leaders, some are followers. The only fear I have is that if the Chimporer made a sudden stop we would have to remove your head from his ass with a tire tool.

Ex: Hitler absolutely loved his wife so much so that he married in the hours before he killed himself and her....

So I guess Al Gore is just like Hitler because he loves his wife as much as Hitler loved his wife, so much so that he couldn't bare to live life without her....

By analogy and comparison the two are true, but instead of conveying Gore's sincere love and affection for his wife, we are now completly off the topic.

That's a bunch of written diarrea. Durbin's remarks were very much on topic. He was speaking directly to the perception of the actions that the FBI agent described and the fact that in his experience of the nature of the US armed forces they are aberrant and need to be soundly condemned. Al gores love for his wfe has nothing to do with Hitler. The mistreatment and torture of prisoners while in the custody of American soldiers has everything to do with similiar practices that this country condemned by our past enemies. If you can't see that then you're blind.

(As to the allegations of torture, without debating that term, suffice it to say, that atrocities occur throughout this world and throughout time, the need to compare them to some of the most barbaric dictators is just stupid and does not teach your audience a single thing, it does however, get a rise out of the left wing base that needs this stirring of their high strung imagination.)

So it's ok then? Atrocities occur? Move along. It's that attitude that necessitates comments like Durbins. Because it's not ok. It is completely unacceptable to me that American soldiers operating in my name were party to such behavior. It is not what I expect. That was Durbins point. That's why he referenced Nazis and Soviets and mad regimes.

So play me like a fool, because you know full well of what you speak.
the use of Nazi, Hitler, etc. are nothing more than calling blacks Niggers, or White's Rednecks or Crackers. I think one calls Jews Kites? although I'm not familiar with that, I think Spick is for Italians....there are a lot.

Glad to see you're well versed in epithets. Durbin did not call our soldiers Nazis. So again your comparison is bogus.

You use these terms to inflame your listener, not to encourage sound debate....

And you've used your evasive answers to avoid sound debate.

Answer the question;

Do you associate chaining a prisoner to the floor naked and denying them food and water with actions one would expect from Nazis or gulag operators or with actions you would expect from American soldiers?

"No one willing to dispute the merit of Durbins comments?"

not even Durbin is, apparently. Otherwise he wouldn't have apologized.

not even Durbin is, apparently. Otherwise he wouldn't have apologized.

He apologized to anyone who was offended. He did not retract what he said.

"I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.

"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apology," Durbin said, choking on his words.

He's sorry that some feel his remarks crossed a line. But no where does he retract his comments.

And you didn't answer the question.

Listen, this is very simple. Some people want to be heroes. Some people want someone to be their hero.

There can be no hero, without there first being a bad guy.

Dur Leedur wanted to be a hero.

He needed to create a bad guy.

He is using the fears of those who do not wish to take responsibility for themselves; those who desperately seek heroes and someone to follow in order to increase his power.

In Bu$hCo's case it is more that he wants power than that he wants to be a hero.

However, he frames it as a being a hero so that he can successfully gather his flock of followers.

The more threatening the bad guy, the more the power hungry hero is needed.

The terrorists are bad; those who would dissent from the hero are aiding the bad guys.

"You're either wit us or aginst us."

Now, it is bleeding over. First it was "terists" - now it is "Liberals".

In Nazi Germany it was the Jews, the Gypsies, then it became the dissenters, anyone who would not follow the Nazi Leedur in protecting them from the perceived enemy.

That is the direct correlation.

Hero = Saviour
Dissenters = Less Protection from Saviour

Children turned in their parents in Nazi Germany. Students turning in their Professors is the first step towards this.

Get a Clue.

"He apologized to anyone who was offended. He did not retract what he said."

So, he apologized because he DID NOT mean it?

There is an understandable tendency to look back on America's experience in post-War Germany and see only the successes. But as some of you here today surely remember, the road we traveled was very difficult. 1945 through 1947 was an especially challenging period. Germany was not immediately stable or prosperous. SS officers -- called "werewolves" -- engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them -- much like today's Baathist and Fedayeen remnants. -Condolezza Rice, August 25th, 2003.

See. Rice evokes the memory of SS actions following the end of WWII to paint a picture of what we face in Iraq. I have no problem with that. Did the ADL get all up in arms over her comments? I bet not. Durbin did the same thing. He said this is what took place and this is what it is reminiscent of.

Or is it ok to compare the enemy's actions to nazis just not Americans actions?

So, he apologized because he DID NOT mean it?

Does he say he didn't mean what he said? He said he regretted anyone being offended.

Answer the question.

"Does he say he didn't mean what he said?"

Do people usually apologize because they meant what they said and are standing by it?

From my point of view, this is actually a non-story. Who cares if there are stupid REthuglicans out there that want to pay students some money to write up ficitious paragraphs about alleged non-PC (or would it be PC?) statements. I say take as much of the money from the 24-year old recent graduate as one can. Bankrupt him.

This story will die away probably in about 24 hours, maximum. Yes, there are some elements of fascism on the outer edges of what the Rethuglicans wish to do (via the clueless 24 year old graduate of UCLA), but this is actually no better (and no worse) than watching that syndicated show of our favorite loud-mouthed Latino Geraldo Rivera (of CNN, of Fox, etc.)--lot of thunder, but no harm done.

But you all missed the point. KCAL09 Los Angeles has this really super visually appealing anchor in Mia Lee, and they make sure she wears the tightest blouses and outfits, showing off her wondrous mammaries! That's the news story!

Your breast implant fetish is most inappropriate here on this thread, YoYo. However, you might note that many of the young lovlies that masquerade as news reporters on television are dropping their necklines.

Do people usually apologize because they meant what they said and are standing by it?

I'm not really concerned with what people usually do. He did not say he did not mean what he said.

I was sickened but not surprised to read "The Brownshirts Are Teaching The Teachers A Lesson In Humanities - NOT!" At first glance, it appears to reveal a conspiracy to silence liberal professors but I believe the truth to be even more heinous. It is an assault on knowledge, the kind of knowledge that has been proven over time, the kind that is accepted as truth, the kind that can only be disputed in light of new evidence, and the kind that crushes self-serving liars. Knowledge and truth are the weapons that can conquer and destroy those who seek power and domination by force or spreading fear and hate.

The radical, conservative, and corrupt right wing power mongers fear knowledge. Knowledge that is truth cannot be extinguished. These enemies of knowledge understand that their fear does not supercede their need for knowledge. Rather than extinguish knowledge, they seek to suppress it and manipulate it. One means toward this end is to eradicate the purveyors of knowledge, the professors. These surveys are public assaults against the professors, in a venue that deprives them of voice or defense. I believe the goal is to evoke fear of knowledge in the general population. The universities will not be able to protect their faculty without the threat of loosing federal funding. Eventually, any voice of opposition, right or left, will be silenced.

That's a bunch of written diarrea.

OK, end of discussion, Snark wins, hands down! This comment alone dislodged the forced feeding tube that was hindering my speech.

"No one willing to dispute the merit of Durbins comments?" -snark.

not even Durbin is, apparently.

Do you often dispute the merit of your own comments anon?

>Who cares if there are stupid REthuglicans out there that want to pay students some money to write up ficitious paragraphs about alleged non-PC (or would it be PC?) statements.

They're requesting audio recordings of the bias that these students are subjected to in the classroom, not written accounts.

Why hasn't the Democratic Presidential recieved a majority since 1976?
No one disputes that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
Except you.

Someone up above said schooling should be about facts, not opinion. Aren’t THEORIES opinions?
Some people think evolution is an opinion.
The church at one point (called THE DARK AGES) suppressed the opinion that the earth was round.
Welcome to Bush's Dark Ages.